My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Mine Blast: Cowardice in NZ Police | Main | RIP, men »

Comments

ED

Add water to hot coal, and you get hot coal gas. A flammable explosive gas.

Where's bamm bamm when you need him?

Andrew  W

So? Again, it's not flammable without oxygen present.

On site they are now looking to starve the fire of O2, and saying they probably should have done so after the first explosion but didn't because of the possibility of some of the miners being alive.
Which is another demonstration of how a lack of good information can be costly.

JB

I recall from involvment in a mine explosion (a larger and more violent one than this I suspect) some years ago that nitrogen gas was routinely used to snuff out fire. If that is correct I'm not sure why the fixation with CO2. Can someone explain the advantages / disadvantages?

probligo

"Problem-man

There is indeed a cover up.
Cover up
Cover up
Cover up"

Yep, repeat a truthiness often enough and people will accept it as gospel.

AW
The chemistry involved is roughly F5 (School Cert) General Science. I know that as well as anyone.

Someone else has already pointed out the effect of water in the coking process (which is fairly close to what you proposed). My later post was just pointing out a few practical considerations.

Sorry folks, but like so many of these debates positions are taken for (quite apparent) political reasons. In some cases those positions run quite contrary to both science and logic.

If other contributors here want to continue their self-deception in the hopes of deluding others to their line of thinking then go for it. I am done banging my head on a coal-face.

As I have already said to two of you self-appointed experts, I only wish I had your names so that I could read your contributions to the Royal Commission, and what reaction came as a result.

AcidComments


Of interest:

Mine rescue must not remain with Mr Plod - Aust editor

An Australian-based online mining journal today called for New Zealand police to be blocked from controlling mine rescues.

http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8429747/mine-rescue-must-not-remain-with-mr-plod-aust-editor/

ED

That can be arranged. Bamm Bamm is well known. He probably is sick of dealing with you.

ED

It looks like the Bammbamm you hounded out of here with fake posts and your mental drivel was right.
Instead we have losers like Peter and Problemman not listening to mining people.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10691349

An Australian-based online mining journal today called for New Zealand police to be blocked from controlling mine rescues.

"What I never want to see again is a disaster of the Pike River mine's magnitude being controlled by the police...and not the people trained and skilled in mine rescue," nzresources.com editor Ross Louthean said in an editorial headed: "Mine rescue must not remain with Mr Plod".

Another Australian journalist - from a daily newspaper - caused a stir during the rescue bid by asking at a press conference why the rescue was being overseen by a "local country cop".

Tasman district police area commander Superintendent Gary Knowles said the emergency response was a multi-agency approach which relied on expert advice.

New Zealand police have called in an Australian mining expert to help recover the bodies of the 29 men trapped in the mine since the initial November 19 explosion.

Volatile conditions underground are hampering efforts to coordinate the recovery of bodies and Mr Knowles said the expert, who does not want to be named, arrived on the West Coast today to meet recovery coordinators.

He told the ABC that the "recognised world authority" had been monitoring readings at the mine from his Queensland home.

"He's been watching the mine as it moves up and down and how it lives and breathes. Having him on site today is an integral part of the operation."

Louthean today said he had been "astounded" police were in charge and making it known what could and could not happen.

"Discussing this with Australian mining colleagues, their view was stronger, suggesting it may hinder saving lives," he said.

Local police played a highly commendable role with the Greymouth community, "but the practice of going back to Wellington for vetting and approval for a critical mine rescue shows New Zealand is a few bricks short of a wall in terms of saving the lives of miners or retrieving their bodies".

In Australia all the decisions are made by search rescue leaders and the inspectors of mines.

If recommendations made by the Royal Commission inquiring into the disaster gave more power to the police search and rescue organisation in Wellington, they might increase the danger to any future miners in peril, he said.

"Greater power may be vested in Wellington bureaucracies that should be listening to people skilled in mine rescues and retrievals, not dictating to them," he said.

The New Zealand mining industry and the mining union need to make compelling submissions," said Louthean, who called on Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee "to support the giving back of rescue powers to mining industry".

- NZPA

TM

I'm saddened by this tragedy, and at the same time repulsed by commenters like peter and probligo who sanctimoniously think they have a right to scoff at people who genuinely would have risked their lives to save the lives of others.
They're the sort of people who insult the memory of fallen soldiers. Disgusting.

Philip

I would tend to disregard the entire discussion here. It is reliant upon incomplete information filtered through the media, no one appears to have have strong expertise in the area (I am aware some claim expertise but I am inclined to ignore claims of authority by people writing under pseudonyms) and a number of people are are evidently influenced by other agendas e.g. police bashing or feuds with other posters on the forum who they will contradict for the sake of contradicting them.

In light of this the heated and dogmatic assertions about what should or shouldn't have happened at Pike River are unwarranted.

probligo

Acid, no doubt the same gentleman as was castigated for his sensitivity and courtesy at one of the press conferences in Greymouth. He found someone to publish his article... I think it is an unwarranted insult to a man who was making a very good job of managing...

ED, I do listen to "mining people". One of the most interesting interviews of the lot came just in the past few days when Geoff Robinson interviewed the Australian expert referred to in your quote there.

New Zealand police have called in an Australian mining expert ... since the initial November 19 explosion.

... Mr Knowles said the expert, who does not want to be named, arrived on the West Coast today to meet recovery coordinators.

He told the ABC that the "recognised world authority" had been monitoring readings at the mine from his Queensland home.

ED, bammbamm may be well known to you. To me he is as much an anonymous avatar as I am to he and you. I could draw a very long bow at this point. I will look for Ross Louthean's submissions to the Royal Commission with as much interest as I await bammbamm's contribution.

TM, there is a whole team of men who have been at Pike River since day one. I have the greatest admiration for them and their willingness to go in to dangerous places. I understand the assessment of the dangers and the problems being faced by the leaders of that team, at a basic level. There are many others who have scoffed at their work and contribution.

I do scoff at stupidity.

I praise the efforts of Knowles and Whittall in the face of those few who think they know better.

You, sir, are like the leaders who sat in their gentleman's clubs in London and ordered good men and true to their death at Gallipoli.

ED

got the name of that australian expert?

Ian Wishart

AS best I can make out, the Aussie expert is Dave Cliff. There was a whisper that he may be appointed as one of the Commissioners on the Inquiry, but given the conflict of interest I can't see that happening.

probligo

Conflict of interest, Ian? If that is true then he might be a bloody good candidate for Commissioner.

If he is not appointed to the Enquiry I hope he also makes submission. Again, I will read it with interest.

TM

"You, sir, are like the leaders who sat in their gentleman's clubs in London and ordered good men and true to their death at Gallipoli."

no probligo, I have not ordered (nor even suggested) that anyone should go in, but I am defending the right of anyone to volunteer on behalf of their fellows. In my opinion if one or more people with relative expertise were prepared to take the risk then they are the equivalent of men who went to war to defend their countries. I am not criticising those at the mine who made the decision not to go in, I am criticising the people like yourself who deride those who were prepared to risk their own lives.
Imagine your child was being pulled out to sea by a rip, would you be deriding someone who wanted to try and save them while a lifeguard held them back because it was futile?

Peter

TM .. I can't believe you and others are still on this Superman trip. Did the volunteers you refer to have a viable plan and methodology to get these men out alive. As I said a heroic individual might have battled his or her way the 2.2 km, but what would they have done for an encore?

Matt McCarten is not wide of the mark with his analysis. Everyone is in awe of Peter Whittal but he and some others will face the hard questions. Not about rescue, but about safety.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10692080

"Eventually someone will be held culpable" is the headline.

JB

"Eventually someone will be held culpable"

Not if its a govt mistake.

peter

Someone will still be held culpable. If it was meant to be the government, then they will pass the buck - inevitably to the employer.

The employer is accountable for Health and Safety. It would be a piece of cake to argue that they did not see that a safe work environment was being overseen - 29 corpses being the evidence.

Under OSH, employers have to do whatever is necessary.

JB

Exactly. Pass the buck as ordained retrospectively by sandal and walk shorts wearers carrying clip boards. I suspect OSH people have accidents from time to time but that's OK, they enforce the rules and it seems today that rule makers and enforcers chose, on occasion, to ignore them just like everyone else. Cave Creek anyone?

The comments to this entry are closed.